Lee Kowalkowski wrote: > On 4 March 2010 21:49, Barney Carroll <barney.carroll at gmail.com> wrote: > >> If you've got Flash working in one instance of IE, you won't be needing to >> (re)install the player to get another instance working. >> > > I think Bob has IE7 on a separate windows installation, so I fear it > will need installing on both. > > >> If you are (rightly) concerned about user experience on pages featuring >> Flash you should provide alternative content, even if that content is just >> 'your browser isn't rendering Flash - you can get the plugin here'. As you >> say, getting a blank box with a red X is crap for everyone. There's a decent >> JS method for injecting Flash if it's available called SWFobject you might >> be interested in. Don't have the link to hand but a quick search should >> through up the right results. >> > > +1 for SWFObject. Otherwise the fallback is just a matter of putting > some content inside the <object> element I think. You may wish to > still have some fallback content when using SWFObject, but one would > usually use a <div> to contain the fallback and pass the <div>'s ID to > SWFObject so when it injects the Flash the fallback is overwritten. > > Yes - many OS installs on different partitions so that I can boot into my OS choice of the moment and check whatever needs checking. Browsercam is useful for other purposes. So, interesting, other than install Windows and necessary service packs for IE8, if I select the right version it works out of the box. But if I do the same with IE7 it goes south. I intentionally try to leave things fairly vanilla so that the computer can reasonably emulate the same pain as the viewer is experiencing. What I really want to know is if this common/normal behavior (for IE7) and I just didn't set up the div as you suggest with SWFObject as I should have. Thanks all.